Posted on 11/09/2011 8:35:38 AM PST by wbill
I was part of the wave that was aghast at the George W. Bush presidency and thanked God Almighty when that dissembler of democracy passed from office. He and his claque had done as much damage to the Constitution as was humanly possible in the span of eight years (where was the tea party then?) and I was one of millions who whooped to Barack Obama as much-needed remediation for a wounded nation expedited into two wars at the whim of its chief executive.
I believe Bush’s successor, Obama, is at root a good man, an honest man. Until recently his greatest failing, in my eyes, was his naive belief that politics is a gentleman’s game and not blood sport; that one need only reason with one’s political opponents to achieve one’s political ends. The 2010 midterm elections threw cold water on that illusion.
However, political inexperience and its resulting incapacity for action are not impeachable offenses. But the summary execution of an American citizen calls, at the very least, for congressional hearings, for it is certainly a high crime.
When President Obama ordered the incineration — through the antiseptic vector of a remotely controlled drone — of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen, he served as judge, jury and executioner, neatly dismissing the American judicial system, assuring it that the executive branch would “take it from here.”
Awlaki was killed on schedule, and the American people yawned.
Dangerous? I’ll say. Several years ago the U.S. government conducted a manhunt to capture Saddam Hussein so that he might be brought to justice as an example to the Iraqi people of how due process works. There was something noble in this. But it begs the question: Why wasn’t an American citizen accorded the same treatment as a foreign dictator?
As preamble to his killing, the government told us of Awlaki’s many crimes, of his directing terrorist plots against the United States, of his inspiring other attacks. Is any of this true? Probably. Do I want to take the government’s word for it? Not on your life.
But I do want to follow the tenets of the United States Constitution: If there was just cause for Awlaki’s arrest, as a U.S. citizen he should have been captured alive and put on trial. Due process is a cornerstone of the republic. It is our shield against the excesses of government.
U.S. citizen Awlaki was not killed in the heat of battle. He was not a proverbial “ticking time bomb.” His assassination was the result of cool, calculated planning at the direction of one man, the president, who himself was freed to act by what we are told was a “secret memo.”
The Constitution, however, makes no mention of exceptions to due process by secret memos drafted in the opaque recesses of a government office.
As a sidebar, it is interesting to note that our government expressed concern over the manner in which Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi died. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she backed plans for a UN investigation. In her words, “You know, I think it’s important that this new government, this effort to have a democratic Libya, start with the rule of law, start with accountability.”
Good advice, which leads me to ask, if the rule of law is our concern, why does the United States blithely make an exception in its own case? The answer perhaps lies in the American taste for vigilantism — the knee-jerk reflex to “kill the bum” rather than see him accorded the rights of law.
It is an impulse deeply rooted in the American character, inflated to its greatest proportions and given free reign during the George W. Bush years, and ennobled by nostalgia for the Old West, when justice was an individual concern dispensed from the barrel of a gun.
And so we have an American president who equates assassination with justice; who in a bid perhaps to be seen as “tough” took the law into his own hands. Now that this taboo has been overcome, why shouldn’t the execution without trial of American citizens become routine? It’s easier than you think: The next assassination is only a secret memo away. > > > > Robert Klose teaches at the University of Maine at Augusta in Bangor. He is a frequent contributor of essays to The Christian Science Monitor and the author of “The Three-Legged Woman & Other Excursions in Teaching.”
BO is in trouble. If this guy won't vote for him AND a Liberal Rag like the BDN will print something like this, he's got a long row to hoe.
I don’t think this miscreant is in any position to judge anyone. He’s just now realized what a dolt zero is?
Who needs him.
They will hold their nose, as many Republicans have when voting(think John McCain)and vote the horrible, hissing Obama back in for four more years.
I’m nauseated at the thought.
What a supremely asinine, stupid and naive statement.
Does he really think we can just fly an FBI agent to Yemen, have him call on the local Al Qaida chapter and just ask them politely to hand over Awlaki?
I was a little disheartened by the election results last night. From what I've read, it was more or less a mixed bag for Conservatives. Then, I read an article where leftists are eating their own, and it's a brand new day again. :-)
“Obama, is at root a good man, an honest man”
The author is still a Kool-Aid drinker.
“Obama, is at root a good man, an honest man”
The author is still a Kool-Aid drinker.
The only thing Obama did RIGHT was killing this a$$hole. When you go to another country and join the enemy forces, you become a legitimate target.
I doubt he gave the order for Bin Laden- I think he voted ‘present’ until Leon Panetta was underway with it.
Robert Klose’s personal motto: When only a moonbat’s moonbat will do.
Aghast at Bush?
Good grief, at least Bush had some real jobs.
And can anyone imagine the Cretin-in-Chief at the controls of a fighter?
Arghhhhhh.
Just remember who is reporting the news. A bad bill is a bad bill no matter who sponsors it.
Whatever it takes to convince this guy and hopefully MILLIONS more like him to stay away from the ballot box for Hussein, I’ll take it.
Hussein doesn’t care about fighting terrorism anyway. This is all posing.
True that. But, saying that "Despite warnings of every single conservative that there is, I still voted for a great big Marxist, who's bent on the destruction of every American Institution that we as Americans hold dear." would mean admitting making a mistake.
I'll settle for "I'll never vote for this guy again."
I believe Bush’s successor, Obama, is at root a good man, an honest man.
I found the root of your problem. You are either a complete idiot or... well,.. really you just gotta be a complete idiot!
Awlaki was killed on schedule, and the American people yawned.
Well actually incorrect. Americans cheered. Not for Obama, who did nothing but be in office, but for our forces that killed another enemy combatant in the ongoing muslim war against Western Civilization and America
I went out to dinner with a couple of friends a few weeks ago. One guy is an independent who got hoodwinked by Obama, the other is a Democrat.
Talk turned to politics. The independent (and more conservative of the two) said "I'm not going to make that mistake again. Obama doesn't get my vote."
The Democrat replied, approximately, "@#$%@%@#% all politicians. To Hell with all of them, I'm staying home on election day."
I said.........nothing. They were doing such a good job of beating themselves up, that I didn't have a thing to add. Assuming that Republicans don't shoot themselves in the foot (always a good possibility) things are shaping up pretty well in 2012, I think.
The author is still a Kool-Aid drinker.
A co-worker said almost the same thing to me a couple months ago.
Saying "Well, he's a good man and he meant well." still allows Liberals the illusion that they didn't make a mistake. Their theology is preserved, and they can happily vote for the next Marxist that comes down the line.
I'm not thrilled by that prospect, but right now I'll accept "I'll never vote for Obama again." It's a start.
This particulate of fecal excrement would have us believe that all humans should be hauled to the US, be given an attorney and a trial regardless of citizenship or alleged crimes.
Our constitution does allow for the execution of those guilty of Treason. If we are going to wrangle with the legalities of a terrorist's actions and subsequent dispatch, have a short trial (in abstentia) using his own taped recordings as evidence and let a jury decide if he is guilty of treason.
Failing that, call him a casualty of war and put his name on some monument in Meca.
How about this? Do not blame ME, ‘the American people,’ for this %$# president’s taking the law into his own hands. “The American people like vigilanteism.” Really? Says who?
Let’s just say ‘This president is corrupt and will take and keep as much power as he can, until the American people see him for what he is, a lowdown scumdawg.’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.